4 ms·

You claimed he misread the story. He did not. The government is using illegal evidence as probable cause and then lying and saying something else is probable ca

by ellyagg 13y ago

You claimed he misread the story. He did not. The government is using illegal evidence as probable cause and then lying and saying something else is probable cause. That is, the real probable cause, the thing that actually turned them on to these suspects, is made "not public". It doesn't get much more "responsive" than that. Yes, I see that you claim to not support the program. It's hard to tell with how vigorously you are defending indefensible aspects of the program and seem to support parts of it on legalistic grounds when the issues at stake are legal AND moral. You continue to parse the posted article in an odd way that gives huge benefits of the doubt to the government when it would appear to deserve none.

tptacek 13y ago
You don't understand the point I was making, or have seized on a part of the conversation where there's enough ambiguity that it's easy to jump in and generate faux outrage about. Meanwhile, your comment is yet another instance† of someone not being satisfied that we agree that the program is bad, but instead demanding that we find it bad for exactly the same set of reasons. Again: case in point for why HN is a terrible venue for political discussions. Incidentally, you might do better than "yes, I see that you claim not to support the program" [em: mine] when in effect admitting that you were not only wrong, but wrong in the entire premise of your response to me. † https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6160951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6160951
- graeme 13y ago
  I'm not sure the point you were making was entirely clear. Having read the article, and your replies, I don't see how the original poster misread the article. It's entirely possible that I don't understand the situation. Could you rephrase the reason you believe the original poster was wrong? i.e. That the evidence trail is public.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Again: the "evidence" gleaned from tip-offs from unlawful surveillance can't be introduced into court in any fashion; for instance, it can't be the stated cause of a search, which must still be justified from first-principles by some defensible claim of probable cause. It's a shadow, secret set of facts, but it isn't evidence and can't be used as such. And, to be clear: I think the program is bad news and don't support it. But my reasons are probably different from those of many other HN readers, and have more to do with precedent (I think if we're going to do extensive foreign SIGINT --- and, sorry, we just are going to do that --- we should at least firewall it off from domestic law enforcement).
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      But the point you keep missing is that you're placing trust in an entity which is accountable to no one.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        No, I haven't done that at all.
    - graeme 13y ago
      Suppose we take it to the logical extreme: 1. Monitor absolutely everything 2. Place yourself in the right place 3. Book people for what you're able to stop them for Isn't there some law or legal doctrine that prevents this sort of police omniscience? Everyone is guilty of some infraction. In other word, doesn't the law require that police show what led them to stop a person, not that the stop was legal according to one condition. It seems like the real probable cause is being hidden. I don't actually know the answer to this, it's a serious question.
      - betterunix 13y ago
        The police had every reason to stop you: you failed to signal a turn (or you did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or you were speeding, or any number of other violations). The real problem here is that there are far too many laws, which has led to a situation where the police can find a "legitimate" reason to arrest/search anyone. There is also the matter of victimless crimes (like possession of certain drugs), which can turn minor infractions like speeding into 20-year prison sentences. The massive increase in police budgets and power over the past few decades added fuel to the fire, but we were in trouble from the beginning.

by ellyagg 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

You don't understand the point I was making, or have seized on a part of the conversation where there's enough ambiguity that it's easy to jump in and generate faux outrage about. Meanwhile, your comment is yet another instance† of someone not being satisfied that we agree that the program is bad, but instead demanding that we find it bad for exactly the same set of reasons. Again: case in point for why HN is a terrible venue for political discussions. Incidentally, you might do better than "yes, I see that you claim not to support the program" [em: mine] when in effect admitting that you were not only wrong, but wrong in the entire premise of your response to me. † https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6160951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6160951

graeme 13y ago
I'm not sure the point you were making was entirely clear. Having read the article, and your replies, I don't see how the original poster misread the article. It's entirely possible that I don't understand the situation. Could you rephrase the reason you believe the original poster was wrong? i.e. That the evidence trail is public.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Again: the "evidence" gleaned from tip-offs from unlawful surveillance can't be introduced into court in any fashion; for instance, it can't be the stated cause of a search, which must still be justified from first-principles by some defensible claim of probable cause. It's a shadow, secret set of facts, but it isn't evidence and can't be used as such. And, to be clear: I think the program is bad news and don't support it. But my reasons are probably different from those of many other HN readers, and have more to do with precedent (I think if we're going to do extensive foreign SIGINT --- and, sorry, we just are going to do that --- we should at least firewall it off from domestic law enforcement).
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    But the point you keep missing is that you're placing trust in an entity which is accountable to no one.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      No, I haven't done that at all.
  - graeme 13y ago
    Suppose we take it to the logical extreme: 1. Monitor absolutely everything 2. Place yourself in the right place 3. Book people for what you're able to stop them for Isn't there some law or legal doctrine that prevents this sort of police omniscience? Everyone is guilty of some infraction. In other word, doesn't the law require that police show what led them to stop a person, not that the stop was legal according to one condition. It seems like the real probable cause is being hidden. I don't actually know the answer to this, it's a serious question.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      The police had every reason to stop you: you failed to signal a turn (or you did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or you were speeding, or any number of other violations). The real problem here is that there are far too many laws, which has led to a situation where the police can find a "legitimate" reason to arrest/search anyone. There is also the matter of victimless crimes (like possession of certain drugs), which can turn minor infractions like speeding into 20-year prison sentences. The massive increase in police budgets and power over the past few decades added fuel to the fire, but we were in trouble from the beginning.